13 hours ago
3
SINGAPORE: A court has set aside an earlier order requiring a woman to repay S$175,689 (US$137,300) in a loan dispute with her mother-in-law after new evidence was admitted.
The previous ruling, granted by a deputy registrar in August 2025 by way of summary judgment, has been overturned after District Judge Chiah Kok Khun said in a judgment dated Mar 16 that there are now “triable issues” and that the new evidence “should be fully dealt with in a trial”.
A summary judgment is a fast-track legal ruling where a judge decides a case without a full trial because the facts appear undisputed.
Documents from related divorce proceedings between the woman and her husband were introduced as new evidence after the court granted permission to use them.
The Family Justice Courts lifted restrictions on the use of documents from related divorce proceedings, allowing the husband’s affidavit to be relied on in the loan dispute.
In a sworn statement, the husband said that he had transferred S$620,670 to his mother. He wrote that part of the amount was to “repay monies the (wife) borrowed from my mother”.
As the claim of S$220,185 could have been fully satisfied through the husband’s transfers, there is now a basis to suggest that the woman may have a defence of double recovery, said District Judge Chiah.
A double recovery is when a claimant is compensated more than once for the same loss or damage. In this case, it might be a double recovery if the mother-in-law were allowed to claim the same sum again.
A court-imposed gag order issued on Nov 10 to protect the identity of the woman's child means that the woman, the mother-in-law and the woman's husband cannot be named.
THE HUSBAND’S SWORN STATEMENT
In his affidavit, the woman’s husband said he had channelled proceeds from the sale of the couple’s matrimonial home to his mother for several purposes.
These included repaying a joint loan of about S$314,304 used to purchase and renovate a property, as well as S$220,185, which he said his wife owed to his mother.
He also said that part of the funds was used to extend loans to two companies.
Court documents showed that the sale of the matrimonial home generated more than S$815,000, including S$60,000 in option money and over S$755,000 in sale proceeds.
Shortly after receiving these funds, the husband transferred a total of S$620,670 to his mother through multiple bank transfers between April and May 2024.
DISPUTE OVER PURPOSE OF TRANSFERS
The mother-in-law said that the transfers were unrelated to the woman’s loans and were instead repayments of separate loans her son had taken.
She also said it would be unlikely for her son to prioritise paying off his wife’s debts amid ongoing divorce proceedings.
However, Judge Chiah noted that the husband had not filed any affidavit in the current proceedings to explain his statements, calling his silence “revealing”.
He also noted the defendant’s contention that the transfers may have had the effect of placing the funds beyond her reach.
Judge Chiah said that this issue is relevant to both the loan dispute and the ongoing divorce proceedings.
He also noted that while the husband had said he used the option money to repay the debt, the bank records suggest that he had used the total sum of the option money and sale proceeds instead.
The dispute, reported by CNA last August, stems from nine loans that the mother-in-law allegedly extended to the woman between 2018 and 2021.
Deputy Registrar Jasmin Kang previously granted summary judgment and ordered the woman to repay S$175,689, after finding that some repayments had already been made.
The woman had admitted to some of the loans but disputed others, including their purpose and whether they had been repaid.
District Judge Chiah questioned why the husband transferred the sale proceeds to his mother, and whether this was meant to repay the S$220,185 allegedly owed.
He said that the issue “is a matter for trial”, adding that the woman should be allowed to defend the claim.
The woman will be allowed to put forward a defence of double recovery at trial, including cross-examining her husband and her mother-in-law on what was agreed between them.
